Canders v. Forbes
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Canders v. Forbes, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate complaint without prejudice and denied no-cost appeal status.
Tijuana L. Canders’s duplicate lawsuit against David C. Forbes, Raima Forbes, and Tracy Forbes was dismissed, while her pending related case under docket number 23-CV-0457 (UA) was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Canders v. Forbes, Tijuana L. Canders brought a self-represented lawsuit against David C. Forbes, Raima Forbes, and Tracy Forbes. She asserted copyright violations, “spiritual abuse,” and “social abuse.”
The court said Canders had already filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendants, involving the same facts and claims. That earlier case remained pending under docket number 23-CV-0457 (UA), so the court found no useful purpose in allowing this duplicate lawsuit to continue.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to Canders’s pending case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied no-cost appeal status, then directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Canders v. Forbes · No. 1:23-cv-00532
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 2, 2023
Background
Tijuana L. Canders brought this self-represented action against David C. Forbes, Raima Forbes, and Tracy Forbes. The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted claims for copyright violations, “spiritual abuse,” and “social abuse.”
Reason for Dismissal
The court stated that Canders had previously submitted a substantially similar complaint against the same defendants, alleging an identical set of facts. That earlier case was pending in the same court under docket number 23-CV-0457 (UA). Because this action raised the same claims, the court concluded that litigating the duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to Canders’s pending case under docket number 23-CV-0457 (UA). The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in this action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.